I too am from the South and have to say that Tenn is the more popular of the three. However, Ole Miss has an extensive network and a great reputation. From what I have heard the Alumni help you out and keep new alumni close to them.

It's based on catologue numbers and stuff they've mailed me. They have the highest mean LSAT of the three and are ranked the highest. You can probably find it on their website; I don't particularly feel like looking. As far as networking in the South, I don't know UK's rep. I was just refering to placement in general, and overall prestige. I have no desire to live in Mississippi or Tennessee.

I've never been to Oxford, but Lexington is a DUMP compared to Knoxville. The school and the town.

I haven't been there, but you're the first person I've come across who has said that. I would still take UK over UTenn in a heartbeat.

I too am from the South and have to say that Tenn is the more popular of the three. However, Ole Miss has an extensive network and a great reputation. From what I have heard the Alumni help you out and keep new alumni close to them.

It's based on catologue numbers and stuff they've mailed me. They have the highest mean LSAT of the three and are ranked the highest. You can probably find it on their website; I don't particularly feel like looking. As far as networking in the South, I don't know UK's rep. I was just refering to placement in general, and overall prestige. I have no desire to live in Mississippi or Tennessee.

If you look at the actual OCI numbers, UK seems to be the most flexible. They have over a hundred on-campus interviewers from all over the country, and an array of Summer internships programs. It's one of the main reasons I applied there. I almost applied to UTenn, but their numbers didn't look as solid. I also would rather live in Lexington I think.

I would be thrilled to make 70K in Lexington, KY. 70K in Lexington = 125K in NYC, LA, CHI. By all accounts UK networks pretty well. They have interviewers from 20+ states. I dont want to work in NYC anyhow.

Kentucky is the only 'tier 1' of the three. I dont know if that means anything. Their employment numbers are pretty impressive also, as are their judicial clerkships placement numbers. Also, they supposedly have over 100 OCI's working there, which suggests that they most likely place pretty well.

I don't see this issue as being as clear cut as those issues were. Voting rights and women's suffrage required constitutional amendments to secure. They weren't randomly decided in court like these gay marriage issues are.

It isn't "adequate" to me. It's all a matter of opinion, though. To Judge Kramer, gay marriage seems to be a tangible concept, and therefore his ruling becomes justifiable. To some, the concept of "marriage" between people of the same sex is an anomoly, and the equal protection argument cannot apply. To rule otherwise would be an inherent attempt to change the definition of what a "marriage" is. Both sides have merit. It all comes down to the ideology of the judge.

No, both sides do not have legal merit. Discrimination is clearly prohibited under the Fourteenth Amendment. The "definition of marriage" argument is a smoke-screen.

I choose to use Wesbter's Dictionary to determine what marriage is. Thanks though. I'm still waiting for a jurist outside of Seattle, Portland or San Francisco to try and redifine a 5000 year old concept.

I was about to support something you said, but before I do that, I should say that pointing to webster's dictionary is about the least persuasive legal argument you can make. The question is not "what is marriage?" (in which case the dictionary absolutely would be appropriate if the legislature hadn't defined it). The question is, "is this application of the marriage laws a violation of the constitution?" No dictionary can provide the slightest insight into that.

That said, there is legal merit to both sides. You can make a decent case that people don't have a fundamental right to marry, or that if they do, they only have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (because that surely is what was envisioned when the Constitution was framed).

On the other hand, you can be real and recognize the fact that saying gay men can marry as long as they marry women is really saying nothing at all, and constitutes a deprivation of liberty (and even property given the way the marriage laws are constructed) without due process. Similar argument for equal protection.

I just happen to think the more persuasive arguments are on the side of gay marriage.

I wasn't using Webster's as my argument. I was just attempting to invoke the idea that "marriage" is specifically defined within culture. You bring up good points, btw.

It isn't "adequate" to me. It's all a matter of opinion, though. To Judge Kramer, gay marriage seems to be a tangible concept, and therefore his ruling becomes justifiable. To some, the concept of "marriage" between people of the same sex is an anomoly, and the equal protection argument cannot apply. To rule otherwise would be an inherent attempt to change the definition of what a "marriage" is. Both sides have merit. It all comes down to the ideology of the judge.

No, both sides do not have legal merit. Discrimination is clearly prohibited under the Fourteenth Amendment. The "definition of marriage" argument is a smoke-screen.

I choose to use Wesbter's Dictionary to determine what marriage is. Thanks though. I'm still waiting for a jurist outside of Seattle, Portland or San Francisco to try and redifine a 5000 year old concept.

It isn't "adequate" to me. It's all a matter of opinion, though. To Judge Kramer, gay marriage seems to be a tangible concept, and therefore his ruling becomes justifiable. To some, the concept of "marriage" between people of the same sex is an anomoly, and the equal protection argument cannot apply. To rule otherwise would be an inherent attempt to change the definition of what a "marriage" is. Both sides have merit. It all comes down to the ideology of the judge.